Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific l<nowledge, policies, or practices.
1
Animal Welfare
Information Center
Newsletter
Summer 1996
Vol. 7. No. 2
ISSN: 1 050-561 X
Congress
In Session
by Cynthia Smith
• H.R. 1269 A bill to amend the Act
of June 22, 1974, to authorize the
Secretary of Agriculture to
prescribe by regulation the repre-
sentation of Woodsy Ov>\.
Introduced on March 21, 1995,
by Carlos Moorhead (R-Calif.) and
referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Section 1 of the act entitled "An
act to prevent the unauthorized
manufacture and use of the character
'Woodsy Owl,' and for other pur-
poses" is amended by amending para-
graph (1) to read: the term "Woodsy
Owl" means the name and repre-
sentation of a fanciful owl who fur-
thers the slogan, "Give a Hoot, Don't
Pollute," originated by the Forest Ser-
vice of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
• H.R. 2854 A bill to modify the
operation of certain agricultural
programs.
Introduced on January 5, 1996,
by Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and signed
into law by President Clinton on April
4, 1996, as Public Law 104-127. This
(cont'd p. 12)
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE...
Protection for Cats and Dogs
P-
12
Policies for Service Animals
P-
13
Service Animal Information
P-
14
Humane Scientist - Rex Burch
P-
17
Announcements
P-
18
Livestock Ethics Symposium
P-
20
A Review of the Animal Welfare
Enforcement Report Data
1973 Through 1995
by
Richard L. Crawford, DVM
Animal Welfare Infonnation Center, National Agricultural Library, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD
Introduction
The data for this review is
taken from the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal
Welfare Enforcement reports, hereafter
referred to as "annual reports," issued
each year from 1973 through 1995.
The annual reports deal with the num-
ber of Hcensed and registered
facilities, animals used in pain and dis-
tress reporting categories, and the
number of regulated animals reported
used in research for each of the years.
This compilation of the report data
from 1973 to 1995 is not meant to be
detailed or comprehensive or to estab-
lish any definite concepts or con-
clusions. It is offered solely to present
the data to those interested in such in-
formation, to point out areas of report-
ing that have changed over the years or
that may be of questionable value, and
to provide some overall trends in enfor-
cement of the Animal Welfare Act
(AW A) over a 23-year history. It is
hoped that this information will stimu-
late some thought, discussion, and fur-
ther analysis of the data. For example,
although some stolen dogs have been
found in research facilities, the num-
ber of dogs reported used in research
each year certainly does not support
the claim that milhons of stolen dogs
are used in research.
In this review, the following
tables contain data from tht Animal
Welfare Enforcement reports to Con-
gress from 1973 through 1995:
Table 1. Number of Licensees and
Registrants: 1973-1995
Table 2. Number of Regulated
Animals Used in Research: 1973-
1995
Table 3. Number of Animals Used in
Pain/Distress Reporting
Categories: 1973-1995
Immediately following each table
are figures to graphically portray the
data from the tables:
Figure 1. Licensed Dealers: 1973-1995
Figure 2. Exhibitors: 1973-1995
Figure 3. Research Facilities: 1973-1995
Figure 4. Pain and Distress
Categories: 1973-1995
Figure 5. Animals Used in Research:
1973-1995
Figure 6. Dogs and Cats Used in
Research: 1973-1995
Figure 7. Nonhuman Primates Used
in Research: 1973-1995
Figure 8. Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, and
Rabbits Used in Research: 1973-
1995
Figure 9. Other Animals Used in
Research: 1973-1995
Notes are provided for each table
to indicate issues or events affecting
National Agricultural Library, AWIC, Beltsville, MD 20705 Phone (301)504-6212 Fax (301)504-7125 E-mail awic@nal.usda.gov
Table 1. Number of Licensees and Registrants, 1973-1995
2.
Year
International
Handlers
Registered
Carriers
Licensed
Dealers
Licensed
Exhibitors
Registered
Exhibitors
Research
Facilities
Federal
Agencies
1973
4,287
286
604
865
1974
5,133
345
752
967
1975
5,680
535
657
985
1976'
4,851
672
464
1,034
40
1977
4,638
848
396
1,024
134
1978
16
50
4,507
924
313
1,057
188
1979
62
77
3,982
978
239
1,051
150
1980
177
97
3,886
1,101
170
1,092
118
1981
197
115
3,664
1,168
130
1,169
131
1982'
(339)
3,439
1,237
106
1,113
131
1983
(346)
3,490
1,266
101
1,166
88
1984
228
130
3,365
1,294
83
1,184
141
1985
242
132
3,414
1,322
64
1,219
160
1986
246
138
3,708
1,354
61
1,241
130
1987
250
140
3,811
1,353
58
1,260
160
1988
275
143
4,233
1,418
58
1,308
58^
1989
282
145
4,082
1,342
46
1,328
58^
1990
266
136
4,268
1,370
45
1,470
142
1991
301
141
4,400
1,444
51
1,474
145
1992
282
136
4,324
1,618
54
1,527
137
1993
280
129
4,154
1,773
55
1,331
147
1994^
246
109
4,238
1,861
35
1,511
250
1995
275
98
4,080
1,937
31
1,300
223
The 1976 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (PL 94-279), approved April 22, 1976, pertained to
the transportation of regulated animals in commerce and brought carriers and intermediate handlers
under regulation. Transportation standards became effective September 15, 1977, and carriers and in-
termediate handlers were first included in the 1978 annual report.
The 1976 amendments also required Federal research facilities to comply with the Animal Welfare
Act and to submit annual reports to USDA Federal facility reports were submitted for the period April
22, 1976, through December 31, 1976. Many Federal facilities did not report or made only partial
reports. Federal research facilities are not inspected by USDA, but are required to comply with the Act,
regulations, and standards.
The 1982 and 1983 annual reports listed only combined figures for carriers and intermediate handlers.
Separate figures are not available.
In 1994, a much higher number of research facilities submitted annual reports than ever before. This
is probably due to continued efforts by REAC to improve reporting by research facilities.
APHIS reorganized the animal welfare program effective October 1, 1988. Animal welfare was moved
from Veterinary Services to Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care. This transition affected report-
ing procedures and resulted in inaccurate reporting for Federal agencies for 1988 and 1989.
be noted that this data does not
include birds, rats of the genus
Rattus, or mice of the genus Mus
bred for laboratory use, but it
does include wild rats and mice.
The original Laboratory
Animal Welfare Act (PL 89-
544), passed August 24, 1966,
did not require annual reports
be made to USDA. The Animal
Welfare Act of 1970 (PL 91-579)
(approved December 24, 1970)
required that research facilities
report certain information to
USDA, which submits an annual
report to Congress containing
specific information not later
than March of each year. The
first Animal Welfare Enforcement
report to Congress was in 1973,
and annual reports have con-
tinued since that time with
several reporting changes along
the way. Each of the annual
report tables will be discussed
separately.
Licensees and Registrants
The AWA requires the
licensing of animal exhibitors,
dealers, and animal auction
operators. Registrants are all
carriers, intermediate handlers,
exhibitors not subject to licens-
ing, and non-Federal research
facilities. The number of licen-
sees and registrants for each
year are shown in table 1.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the num-
ber of licensed dealers, ex-
hibitors, and research faciUties
from 1973 to 1995 followed by a
brief analysis of each category.
Instances that may have affected
the reporting are indicated by
numbered notes for that year.
Intermediate Handlers
reporting requirements. It should be
noted that each year a variable number
of research faciUties did not submit
reports or submitted reports too late to
be included in the annual report. The
data, therefore, does not include all
regulated animals used in research be-
cause these late, or nonreporting,
facilities were omitted. This problem
decreased significantly over the past 4
or 5 years because of a concerted effort
by USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS),
Regulatory Enforcement and Animal
Care (REAC) unit to improve report-
ing by research facilities. It should also
Intermediate handlers are
people and businesses that hand-
le animals to and from the air-
port, during layovers, and be-
tween connecting flights. Hand-
lers receive custody of the animals
during transportation in commerce. In-
termediate handlers were brought
under regulation by the 1976 amend-
ments to the AWA. There were 16
registered intermediate handlers in
1978. This figure slowly increased to
301 in 1991 and has decreased since
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
that time to 275 in 1995. Since 1981,
the number has fluctuated between 200
and 300 intermediate handlers. These
fluctuations are most likely due to
people going into and out of business
for various reasons.
Carriers
A carrier is a person or enterprise
engaged in the business of transporting
animals for hire. Carriers are mostly
commercial airlines. Carriers were
brought under regulation by the 1976
amendments to the AWA. In 1978,
there were 50 registered carriers. This
figure increased to 145 in 1989 and has
steadily decreased since then to 98 in
1995. This decrease is most likely due
to changes within the industry, airline
mergers, or companies going out of
business. Most airlines have sites
(cargo and passenger terminals) at
many airports throughout the United
States. Not all of these sites are in-
spected by USDA. Inspections by
USDA are usually restricted to the
larger airports where animal shipments
may begin or terminate and at hub air-
ports where animals may change flights
or airlines.
Dealers
A dealer is any person who buys,
sells, negotiates the sale, or transports
regulated animals (live or dead), or
parts of regulated animals for regu-
lated purposes. Retail pet stores, as
defined in the AWA regulations, and
people selUng domestic pet animals
directly to the pet owner are not in-
cluded in the definition of a dealer.
There are two classes of dealers: A and
B. Class A dealers are breeders who
only sell the animals they breed and
raise. Class B dealers are those who
buy and resell animals, negotiate or ar-
range for the sale of animals, or deliver
for transportation or transport, animals
that are in commerce for compensation.
In 1973, the first year USDA was
required to report to Congress, there
were 4,287 Ucensed dealers. This fig-
ure increased over the next 2 years to a
high of 5,680 in 1975. The number of
dealers then dropped each year to
3,365 in 1984. Since then, the number
of dealers has again risen to 4,400 in
1991 with a slight decline in 1992 and
1993 to a total of 4,080 in 1995. The
figures have been more or less stable
since 1988.
It is difficult to analyze the in-
crease and decrease in the number of
dealers over the years as many factors
may be involved. Based on my 27 years
in the Animal Welfare program, the fol-
lowing factors probably played a sig-
nificant role in the variations. The in-
crease from 1973 to 1975 was most like-
ly due to persons starting business and
becoming hcensed with the idea of
making money by selling animals with
as little expense as possible. The
decrease from 1975 to 1985 was probab-
ly due to a combination of economics
and USDA enforcement action against
the poorest dealers. Those dealers
with minimal, or substandard, opera-
tions found they could not make suffi-
cient money because of unhealthy
animals and additionally were subject
to legal action and possible penalties
from USDA. As the years went by,
USDA increased the number of legal
actions and the severity of the penalties
against the dealers who were not in
compliance. This continuous decline in
the number of dealers for about 10
years appears to coincide with enforce-
ment efforts and public concern.
In 1985, the number of dealers
started increasing again and has held
fairly steady, in the low 4,000 range,
since 1988. It was about this time that
the wholesale pet trade began to or-
ganize because of concerns with poor
dealer operations and the industry's
economic future in view of bad
publicity it was receiving. Concerned
members of the pet trade succeeded in
organizing and establishing standards
for a voluntary, self-regulation pro-
gram. This effort continues to grow
and provide a higher quality animal to
the pet market. This has very possibly
influenced the stability in the number
of dealers since about 1988. Also,
several States in the Midwest have
passed legislation to oversee dealers
and have implemented regulatory
programs to improve animal care and
housing. These programs, in conjunc-
tion with the AWA and with coopera-
tion between the States and APHIS,
have impacted dealer operations.
Although the dealer category in-
cludes people selling animals for pets,
exhibition, research, and auction sales;
wild and exotic animal dealers; and
some transporters, most are involved in
the pet trade. The total number of
class B dealers has usually averaged
about 25 percent to 30 percent of the
total number of dealers, with less than
100 random source B dealers providing
animals for research purposes. The
rest of the B dealers are involved in the
pet trade, wild or exotic animal sales,
or transportation. Most A dealers (or
6,000
5,500
3,000
Licensed Dealers
1973-1995
n \ I \ \ I — \ — r
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
~l \ \ I \ \ I \ I \ 1 1 1 1
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 1
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
3
Figure 2
breeders) are involved in the pet trade,
witli a small number raising animals for
research. Significant variations in the
number of dealers would, therefore,
mostly involve the pet trade.
Exhibitors
An exhibitor is anyone obtaining,
distributing, or transporting regulated
animals in commerce and exhibiting
them to the public for compensation.
Most exhibitors meet these require-
ments and are required to license with
USDA. Those who do not obtain, dis-
pose of, or transport animals in com-
merce and who receive no compensa-
tion are registered. Both Hcensed and
registered exhibitors must comply with
the same regulations and standards,
however. Exhibitors are involved in a
variety of endeavors such as municipal
or county zoos, roadside and private
zoos, theme parks, marine mammal
parks, petting zoos, educational ex-
hibits, circuses and carnivals, animal
acts, and animals used in television and
movie work.
Exhibitors were brought under
regulation by the 1970 amendments to
the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act
and were included in the first report to
Congress in 1973. There were 286
Hcensed exhibitors in 1973. The num-
ber of licensed exhibitors has increased
each year since then with 1,937 ex-
hibitors being licensed in 1995. Some
of this increase is due to the regulation
of additional species of animals, such
as the regulation of marine mammals in
1979 and farm animals in 1990. Some
of the increase is due to changing im-
properly registered exhibitors to a
licensed exhibitor status. Most of the
growth, however, has been due to an
increase in animal exhibit facilities
and animal acts being presented to
the pubhc for entertainment and en-
joyment.
Registered exhibitors totaled 604
in 1973 and reached a high of 752 in
1974. Since that time, registered ex-
hibitors have steadily decreased each
year with a total of 31 in 1995. This is
due to the fact that many exhibitors
were improperly registered in the first
couple of years of regulation when
they should have been licensed. Con-
tinued review of registered exhibitors
by USDA has resulted in most of
them being converted to a licensed ex-
hibitor status with only a small num-
ber qualifying for registration.
The types of animals involved in
the regulation of exhibitors range
from wild rodents and bats to
elephants and killer whales. The total
number of exhibitors (both licensed
and registered) was 890 in 1973 and
1,968 in 1995, a Hltle over double the
number of exhibitors regulated in 1973.
Researcfi Facilities
A research facility is any person,
institution, organization, or school (ex-
cept an elementary or secondary
school) that uses or intends to use regu-
Research Facilities
1973-1995
1,600 -|
800 : : ' ■ ■ 1 ] i ] \ \ i i ] ] \ 1
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 3
4
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
Table 2. Regulated Animals Used in Research, 1973-1995
Year
All Animals
Dogs
Cats
Primates
Guinea Pigs
Hamsters
Rabbits
Farm Animals
Other Animals
1973
1,653,345'
195,157
66,195
42,298
408,970
454,986
447,570
38,169
1974
1,692,527
199,204
74,259
51,253
430,439
430,766
425,585
81,021
1975
1,625,660'
154,489
51,439
36,202
436,446
456,031
448,530-
42,523
1976
1,922,100'
210,330
70,468
50,115
486,310
503,590
527,551
73,736
1977'
1,519,669'
176,430
62,311
53,116
348,741
393,533
439,003
46,535
1978
1,687,201
197,010
65,929
57,009
419,341
414,394
475,162
58,356
1979
1,832,045
211,104
69,103
59,359
457,134
419,504
539,594
76,247
1980
1,661,904
188,783
68,482
56,024
422,390
405,826
471,297
49,102
1981
1,658,441'
188,649
58,090
57,515
432,632
397,522
473,922
50,111
1982
1,577,292'
161,396
49,923
46,388
459,246
337,790
453,506
69,043
1983
1,680,242
174,542
53,344
54,926
485,048
337,023
466,810
108,549
1984
2,074,133
201,936
56,910
55,338
561,184
437,123
529,101
232,541
1985
2,153,787
194,905
59,211
57,271
598,903
414,460
544,621
284,416
1986
1,778,403
176,141
54,125
48,540
462,699
370,655
521,773
144,470
1987
1,969,123
180,169
50,145
61,392
538,998
416,002
554,385
168,032
1988
1,635,288
140,471
42,271
51,641
431,457
331,945
459,254
178,249
1989
1,754,456
156,443
50,812
51,688
481,712
389,042
471,037
153,722
1990^
1,578,099
109,992
33,700
47,177
352,627
311,068
399,264
66,702
257,569
1991
1,842,420
107,908
34,613
42,620
378,582
304,207
396,046
214,759
363,685
1992
2,134,182
124,161
38,592
55,105
375,063
369,585
431,432
210,936
529,308
1993^
1,704,505
106,191
33,991
49,561
392,138
318,268
426,501
165,416
213,309
1994
1,624,649
101,090
32,610
55,113
360,184
298,934
393,751
180,667
202,300
1995
1,395,463
89,420
29,569
50,206
333,379
248,402
354,076
163,985
126,426
1. Animals were reported only from January 1, 1977, through September 30, 1977, because of a change in reporting from calendar year to fiscal
year.
2. Farm animals were regulated in June 1990, and required to be reported.
3. A review of the 1993 annual report indicates inaccuracies in the figures for farm animals and other animals because of birds and cold-blooded
species such as fish, frogs, and lizards, being included in the counts. The correct figure for farm animals for 1993 is 165,416 instead of 365,233.
The correct figure for other animals is 212,309 instead of 677,556. This also changes the total for all animals to 1,704,505 instead of 2,369,439.
4. Addition mistakes were made in calculating the total number of all animals used in research in the annual reports for 1973,1975, 1976, 1977,
1981, and 1982. The figures indicated in the annual report for these years for all animals used in research are as follows:
1973 1,653,132
1975 1,378,030
1976 1, 779,837
1977 1,521,595
1981 1,658,439
1982 1,576,556
The correct flgures for all animals for these years are shown in table 2.
lated animals in research, tests, experi-
ments, or teaching, and that purchases
or transports animals in commerce, or
receives Federal funds for carrying out
such research, tests, experiments, or
teaching. Research facilities that use
animals include hospitals, colleges and
universities, diagnostic and toxicology
laboratories, pharmaceutical com-
panies, and biotechnology industries.
Research facilities are classified as ac-
tive or inactive facilities. An inactive
facility is one where no regulated
animals are kept or used. The total
number of registered research facilities
in 1995 was 1,300 (both active and inac-
tive). There were an additional 223
Federal research facilities reporting.
In the first annual report to Con-
gress in 1973, there were 865 registered
research facilities. The number of re-
search facilities increased almost yearly
to a high of 1,527 in 1992. The total
dropped to 1,331 in 1993, rose to 1,511
in 1994, then dropped again slightly to
1,300 in 1995. This is almost a 75-per-
cent increase over the number of
registered research facilities in 1973.
A research facility may have only one
animal site or may have more than a
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
5
Table 3. Animals Used in Pain Reporting Categories, 1973-1995
Year
No Pain
&
No Drugs
With Pain/Distress
&
With Drugs
With Pain/Distress
&
Without Drugs
1973'
(19,336)
19742
(1,774) 65,301
1975
117,756
1976
129,263
19773
114,911
1978
150,191
19794
504,790
108,788
1980
481,716
122,650
1981
493,681
101,653
1982
465,518
130,363
1983
515,608
139,411
1984
665,543
128,256
1985
766,804
147,422
1986
608,308
113,161
1987
692,247
130,373
1988^
961,271
90,400
1989^
1,019,350
619,219
116,587
1990
920,330
568,145
89,624
1991
1,131,139
602,415
108,866
1992
1,241,373
772,601
120,208
1993
1,281,969
926,990
160,480
1994
884,591
560,871
179,187
1995
754,712
517,377
123,374
1. The 1973 and early L974 annual report did not request the number of animals used in
research, but only requested the number of experiments involving unrelieved pain or
distress for animals. This is the first year reports were required. From late 1974 to
1978, only animals involving unrelieved pain or distress were required to be reported.
The number of experiments reported in 1973 and 1974 are shown in parentheses,
with the numbers of animals reported shown each year thereafter.
2. In late 1974, a revised reporting form was distributed to research facilities requesting
the number of animals exposed to unrelieved pain rather than the number of experi-
ments. Figures for both the number of animals and the number of experiments are
shown for 1974.
3. Reports on the number of animals used subject to unrelieved pain (no drugs) were
reported only from January 1, 1977, through September 30, 1977, because of a change
in reporting from calendar year to fiscal year.
4. The 1979 annual report was the first report to list both the number of animals used
involving pain that was relieved by drugs and the number of animals used involving
unrelieved pain (no drugs).
5. APHIS reorganized the animal welfare program effective October 1, 1988. Animal
welfare was moved from Veterinary Services to Regulatory Enforcement and Animal
Care. This transition affected reporting lines and procedures and could have affected
the data in both reporting categories.
6. The reporting of animals used involving no pain and no drugs, in addition to the two
previous categories, was required in the 1989 annual report.
dozen animal sites. In 1995, the 1,300
registered research facilities had 2,688
animal sites. The almost 75-percent in-
crease in research facilities since 1973
presents an interesting statistic, especial-
ly when research dollars are reportedly
becoming harder to obtain. From the in-
crease in the number of research
facilities, one would surmise that the
competition for research funding has sig-
nificantly increased, the amount of fund-
ing for research has significantly in-
creased, research has changed to use
less expensive methods, or a great deal
more private money is being used for re-
search. From this data, it is not clear
why the number of research facilities has
increased so dramatically but the rapid
developments in biotechnology,
medicine, and pharmaceuticals are good
possibilities.
When one looks at the number of
research facilities compared to the total
number of animals used in research (ex-
cluding birds, laboratory rats and mice,
and cold-blooded species) over the
same period, the data is even more inter-
esting. The total number of regulated
animals used in research is shown in
table 2. In 1973, there were 1,653,132
animals reported used in research, not
counting farm animals, birds, rats, or
mice. In 1995, there were 1,395,644
regulated animals reported used in re-
search, including farm animals but not
including birds, rats, or mice. It is recog-
nized that the actual figures on animal
use are not complete each year because
of too-late reports, or because no
reports have been submitted. Because
birds, rats, and mice are not included in
the number of animals reported, the
numbers of these animals may have in-
creased while the number of regulated
animals showed little change. There is
also some variation in reporting from
year to year for various reasons. Still,
the overall trend over 23 years should be
fairly valid.
The figures vary up and down over
the years but remain fairly consistent.
Why has the number of research
facilities shown an almost 75-percent in-
crease while the total number of animals
used has remained fairly steady? There
could be any number of reasons. In
their book Hie Principles of Humane Ex-
perimental Technique (1959, reprinted in
1992 by the Universities Federation for
Animal Welfare, Herts, England),
W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch ad-
6
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
vanced the concept of the 3Rs--reduc-
tion in animal number, refinement of
technique to minimize pain and dis-
tress, and replacement of animal
models with nonanimal models. In cur-
rent research, the 3R's may be working
better than many people realize. It is
also possible that economics may have
played a role in this as well as scientific
and technological improvements within
the industry. I will not attempt to offer
an answer here, but only to pose the
question. Perhaps some industrious
person will look into this question more
thoroughly.
Federal Agencies
The AWA amendments of 1976
required Federal research facilities to
submit an annual report to USDA.
The report to Congress for 1976 indi-
cated 40 Federal research facilities
reporting for the period from April 22,
1976, through December 31, 1976. The
1977 report showed 134 Federal re-
search facihties reporting. The figures
vary between about 130 and 160 report-
ing Federal research facilities over the
next 17 years. In 1994, there were 250
Federal research facilities reporting,
with a drop to 223 in 1995. This
general increase in the number of
Federal research facilities report-
ing could be due to several factors:
(1) A concerted effort on behalf of
USDA to improve reporting by re-
search facihties, (2) congressional
investigation of research in the
Department of Defense (DoD) in
the early 1990's, and (3) meetings
of the Interagency Research
Animal Committee (IRAC).
These may all have assisted in im-
proving the reporting by Federal
agencies. The 2 years, 1988 and
1989, show 58 reporting Federal re-
search facilities. These figures are
not correct. The animal welfare
program was removed from
USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Ser-
vices (VS), on September 30, 1988,
and estabhshed as USDA, APHIS,
Regulatory Enforcement and
Animal Care (REAC) on October
1, 1988. Because of the reorganiza-
tion, change of responsibility, new
offices and personnel, and new
reporting Unes, incorrect data was
obtained for these 2 years. The correct
figures could not be obtained for these
years. The next 4 years show reporting
Federal research facility numbers
about equivalent to the numbers in
preceding years, and a significant in-
crease occurred in reporting Federal re-
search facilities in 1994 and 1995. The
increased scrutiny of research by Con-
gress, animal rights groups, and the
public, plus efforts by USDA, APHIS
to improve facihty reporting, are
probably responsible in part for this in-
crease in reporting Federal research
facilities.
Pain/Distress Reporting
Categories
The number of animals used in
pain and distress reporting categories
each year is shown in table 3. Figure 4
shows the data from 1973 through 1995
followed by a brief analysis of each
category. Instances that may have af-
fected the reporting are indicated by
numbered notes for that year immedi-
ately after the table.
General
The first annual report in 1973
and most of the year of 1974 required
only the reporting of the number of "ex-
periments" involving animals with un-
relieved pain or distress. In the latter
part of 1974, research facihties were re-
quired to report the number of animals
used involving unrelieved pain or dis-
tress rather than the number of experi-
ments. The data for these 2 years,
therefore, is questionable when used
with the rest of the data in table 3. The
first year with valid usable data is 1975.
Also, in 1988, APHIS reorganized the
animal welfare program by removing it
from Veterinary Services (VS) and
placing it in Regulatory Enforcement
and Animal Care (REAC). In looking
at the figures for 1988, it is apparent
that they differ somewhat from the
figures of the previous years and the
years following 1988. The figures may
be questionable because of the disrup-
tion and change in reporting, inspec-
tion, and recordkeeping procedures be-
cause of the APHIS reorganization.
The 1988 figures should, therefore, be
viewed with caution. It should also be
remembered that these figures do not
Pain and Distress Categories
1 973 - 1 995
1,400,000
1.200,000
V) 1,000.000
(0
E
c
<
800,000
E
600,000
400,000
200.000
Legend
With Pain/Distress Without Drugs
With Pain/Distress With Drugs
No Pain/Distress No Drugs
V
A
\
\
\
T
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
83 84 85
Years
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Figure 4
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
7
include birds, rats, or mice, and only
include farm animals starting in June of
1990.
With Pain/Distress and
Without Drugs
The data reported in 1973 and
part of 1974 was for the number of ex-
periments involving unrelieved pain or
distress to the animals rather than the
number of animals used. In late 1974,
research facilities were required to
report the number of animals subjected
to unrelieved pain or distress rather
than the number of experiments. The
figures in parentheses in 1973 and 1974
indicate the number of experiments
while the other figures indicate the
number of animals. The first entire
year for reporting animals subject to
unrelieved pain or distress was 1975.
The 1975 annual report indicates
117,756 animals with unrelieved pain
were used in research that year. The
following years show an up-and-down
pattern with a low of 89,624 reported in
1990, a high of 179,187 reported in 1994
and a drop to 123,374 in 1995. The
figures show a varied pattern over the
years and, except for a peak of 150,191
in 1978, a general increase in the num-
ber of animals subjected to unrelieved
pain or distress from 1975 to 1985.
From 1986 to 1991, there was a general
reduction in the number of animals sub-
jected to unreheved pain or distress
and then increases in 1992, 1993, and
1994 to a high of 179,187, with a
decrease in 1995. The increase in the
number of reported animals used in ex-
periments involving unrelieved pain or
distress in 1993 and 1994 may be due to
better and more standard reporting
procedures and an increase in the num-
ber of research facilities reporting on
time. There may be other reasons also,
such as a change in the type of research
being conducted, which is not apparent
from the data collected. Additional in-
formation is necessary for further
analysis. It is interesting to note that
there were not corresponding
decreases in the number of animals sub-
jected to pain or distress that was al-
leviated by drugs.
With Pain/Distress and With
Drugs
In 1979, the annual report con-
tained data on the number of animals
used in potentially painful or distressful
procedures in which the pain or dis-
tress was relieved by drugs as well as
the number of animals subjected to un-
relieved pain or distress. The data for
1979 shows 504,790 animals used in
potentially painful or distressful proce-
dures in which the pain or distress was
relieved by drugs. The figures hold fair-
ly steady over the years except for
spikes in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1992, and
1993. I can offer no reason for the
higher numbers in these years other
than changes in the type of research
that was carried out during these
periods or misreporting. Again, more
information is necessary to properly ex-
plain these figures.
No Pain/Distress and No
Drugs
In 1989, the Department began
collecting data on the number of
animals used in research projects in-
volving no pain or distress and no pain-
relieving drugs. These figures have
held fairly steady, at about the 1-mil-
lion range, over the past 7 years, with
the lowest number of 754,712 reported
in 1995. There is insufficient data here
to draw any conclusions other than that
the numbers are fairly comparable
each year.
Animals Used in
Research
The number of regulated animals
reported used in research is shown in
table 2. Figures 5 through 9 show the
breakdown by type of animal. Instan-
ces that may have affected the report-
ing are indicated by numbered notes
for that year immediately following the
table.
General
The number of animals used in re-
search has been a controversial topic
for many years. There is little reliable
data on the number of animals used in
research other than Animal Welfare En-
forcement, USDA's annual report to
Congress. The annual report figures
are not accurate and complete in the
number of animals used in research for
the following reasons:
1. The Animal Welfare Act regulates
only warm-blooded animals, and
there are some exceptions.
2. Rats of the genus Rattus, mice of
the genus Mus, and birds are not
presently regulated or required to
be reported.
Animals Used in Research
1973- 1995
2,500,000
2,000,000
fO
E
c
<
= 1,500,000
^ 1,000,000
E
500,000
n 1 i ! I '■ i I 1 I i I \ I ; i I I 1 I
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 S5 86 87 88 89 90 01 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 5
8
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
Dogs and Cats Used in Research
1973-1995
73 74 75 78 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 6
3. Farm animals were not regulated
and reported until June 1990.
4. Annual reports compiled by USDA
were not complete in that some
facility annual reports were not
received at all or were received too
late to be included in the annual
report to Congress. Significant im-
provement has been made in this
area over the past several years.
Even with these omissions, the
USDA annual report data is the best
available for the numbers of regulated
animals used in research. While defini-
tive conclusions cannot be made from
this data, general trends can be ob-
served from the numbers of animals
reported. Any analysis of the figures
on the numbers of animals used in re-
search should also consider the num-
ber of registered research facilities,
which increased from 865 in 1973 to
1,527 in 1992, then decreased to 1,300
in 1995. I do not intend to do a
detailed analysis of these figures, but
only to point out general trends and
possible influencing factors. I leave the
detailed analysis to those more capable
than I in these matters. Have fun!
All Animals Used in Research
This category includes warm-
blooded animals used for research ex-
cept for rats of the genus Rattus, mice
of the genus Mus, and birds. Addition-
ally, farm animals used for food, fiber,
and other agricultural purposes are not
included in these figures.
In 1973, a reported 1,653,345 regu-
lated animals were used in research
with 1,395,463 animals reported used
in research in 1995. The figures
reported between 1973 and 1995 vary
with highs of 2,074,133 in 1984,
2,153,787 in 1985, and 2,134,182 in
1992. With the exception of these high
years, the rest of the years are fairly
constant in the number of animals used
in research with some fluctuation but
within the range of 1 to 2 million. Over-
all, the total number of regulated
animals used in research has not sig-
nificantly increased or decreased in the
past 23 years. The increase in the num-
ber of registered research facilities
from 865 in 1973 to 1,300 in 1995 poses
some interesting questions. Are more
research facilities using fewer animals
each year? Are more research
facilities using nonregulated animals?
Have the 3R's had an impact on the
number of animals used? How have
economics and increasing costs af-
fected the number of animals used in
research? Not only is it likely that all
these factors have had some impact on
the number of animals used, but addi-
tional factors that are not so readily ap-
parent may be involved. A look at the
number of animals used, by species,
may give an indication of what is hap-
pening.
Dogs Used in Research
In 1973, there were 195,157 dogs
reported used in research. This figure
stayed in the high 100,000 range until
1985 with peaks of over 200,000 in
1976, 1979, and 1984. There were
194,905 dogs reported used in research
in 1985. This number then gradually
decreased over the next 10 years to a
low of 89,420 dogs in 1995. The num-
ber of dogs used appears to be fairly
constant between 1973 and 1985.
From 1985 to 1995, the numbers of
dogs used for research continued to
decrease. In 1985, the Improved Stand-
ards for Laboratory Animals Act was
passed as an amendment to the AWA.
This amendment required research
facilities to develop and carry out a
plan to provide for exercise for dogs
maintained at research facilities. It is
interesting to note that the decline in
the use of dogs reported used for re-
search follows the passage of the 1985
amendment to the AWA. During the
period just before 1985 and in the years
since 1985, there has been increased
concern and pressure from humane
and animal rights groups concerning
dogs used in research. Could com-
pliance with the opportunity for exer-
cise requirement have encouraged re-
search facilities to review their use of
dogs in research and to eliminate the
nonessential use of dogs to reduce com-
pliance problems and expenses? This
decline suggests that the amendment
encouraged implementation of the 3R's
and researchers reduced the number of
dogs used by substituting other species
or methods. It is very Hkely that other
factors, such as economics, also played
a role in decreasing the number of dogs
used in research since 1985.
Cats Used in Research
In 1973, there were 66,195 cats
reported used in research. This figure
rose to a high of 74,259 in 1974. From
1975 to 1987, the number of cats used
in research fluctuated in the range of
50,000 to 60,000 except for a rise to
70,468 in 1976. Since 1986, the number
of cats used in research has steadily
declined to a low 29,569 in 1995. This
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
9
Nonhuman Primates Used in Research
1973- 1995
65,000
60.000
40.000
35,000
1 1 I I 1 ' i I i I I T"
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Year
~i I I I I \ I I I
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Figure 7
9-year decrease in the number of cats
used in research is similar to the 10-
year decrease in the use of dogs in re-
search. The factors that may have in-
fluenced the use of cats in research are
not as strong, or comparable, to the fac-
tors that possibly influenced the use of
dogs in research. There were no spe-
cial requirements placed on cats by
the 1985 amendment as were placed
on dogs, so there is no legislative in-
fluence to precipitate such a decline
in numbers. Is it possible that
economic factors, the 3R's, and as-
sociated influence from the use of
dogs affected the use of cats in re-
search? The decrease in the number
of cats used in research during the
same time period as the decrease in
the number of dogs used may be coin-
cidental, but the time period and
decreased numbers suggest a connec-
tion. Whatever the cause, there has
been a significant decrease in the num-
ber of cats used in research since
1973.
Nonhuman Primates Used in
Research
primates reported used in research
varied mostly within the range of 40,000
to 50,000 with highs of 59,359 in 1979
and 61,392 in 1987. The 1995 report in-
dicated 50,206 nonhuman primates
used in research. Overall, the trend in
nonhuman primates used in research
appears to be fairly steady. The 1985
amendment to the AWA also re-
quired a physical environment ade-
quate to promote the psychological
well-being of nonhuman primates.
This requirement, however, has not
led to a decrease in the number of
nonhuman primates used in research
as possibly occurred with the use of
dogs. There has also been concern
and opposition from animal protec-
tion groups about use of nonhuman
primates in research, but this has ap-
parently not affected the use of non-
human primates. There are also no
apparent economic issues that have
led to any decrease in use of non-
human primates. The data suggests
that the type of research involving
nonhuman primates either requires
nonhuman primates as the animal
model or that the research involving
nonhuman primates is important
enough to continue their use so that
the 3R's have had little applicability.
Whatever the reasons, the number of
nonhuman primates used in research
has changed little over the past 22
years.
Guinea Pigs Used in Research
In 1973, there were 408,970
guinea pigs reported used in research.
This figure gradually increased to a
Guinea Pigs/Hamsters/Rabbits
1973- 1995
600,000
500,000
E
<
400,000
300,000
200,000
Legend
— Guinea Pigs
Hamsters
Rabbits
I I I I 1 r I I i 1 I I I ! r I I I \ I I
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 8
There were 42,298 nonhuman
primates reported used in research in
1973, with 51,253 used in 1974 and a
low of 36,202 used in 1975. From 1973
to 1995 the number of nonhuman
10
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
other Animals Used in Research
1 973 - 1 995
600,000
500.000
V)
(0 400,000
E
c
<
300,000
E
200,000
100,000
— 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I \ 1 I I
73 74 75 76 77 7B 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 9
high of 598,903 in 1985 and has gradual-
ly decreased since 1985 to 333,379 in
1995. From 1973 to 1989, the number
of guinea pigs used in research
remained largely in the range of
400,000 to 500,000 with spikes into the
500,000 to 600,000 range. Since 1990,
the number has decreased. There is no
apparent reason for the slight decrease,
but it may be due to the type of re-
search being done, increased apphca-
tion of the 3R's, or advancement in
methods and technology.
Hamsters Used in Research
There were 454,986 hamsters
reported used in research in 1973 with
a high of 503,590 in 1976 and a low of
248,402 in 1995. From 1973 to 1981,
the number of hamsters held fairly
steady in the range of 400,000 to
500,000. From 1982 to 1989, the figures
also included the range of 300,000 to
400,000. Although the numbers vary
somewhat from 1990 to 1995, there is a
general downward trend over this 6-
year period. The data suggests no
reasons for this slight decrease other
than those suggested for guinea pigs
above.
Rabbits Used in Research
There were 447,570 rabbits
reported used in research in 1973, with
a high of 554,385 used in 1987 and a
low of 354,076 in 1995. Although use of
rabbits has varied from year to year,
the trend has held fairly steady with
usage holding in the range of 400,000 to
500,000. The number has held fairly
steady over the years with some varia-
tions. The rabbit appears to be the
steadiest of all the animal numbers
reported. It could be the species that is
used most in research except for
laboratory rats and mice, which are not
regulated or reported at this time.
Farm Animals Used in
Research
Farm animals were brought under
regulation in June 1990, so the figures
for that year may not be complete and
may not indicate the true number of
farm animals used in research in 1990.
The data available indicates that the
number of farm animals on a yearly
basis would probably be close to the
range of 200,000 to 300,000. The 1993
annual report indicated there were
365,233 farm animals used in research.
A review of the annual reports by
REAC showed this to be an incorrect
figure because nonrcgulalcd animals
such as chickens and other birds were
reported. The correct figure for 1993
is 165,416 farm animals used in re-
search (table 2). There is insufficient
data at this time to make any assump-
tions on the trend of farm animal use
in research.
Other Animals Used in
Research
The category of Other Animals
covers a broad range of animal
species, from wild rats and mice, squir-
rels, ferrets, and bats, to wild, exotic,
hoof stock, carnivores, and marine
mammals. There were 38,169 other
animals used in 1973, which is also the
lowest number reported, and 126,426
other animals used in 1995. The 1993
annual report indicated that 677,556
other animals were used, which is a
tremendous increase from 1992
figures and initiated a review of the
report by REAC. The review showed
this figure to be wrong because of the
inclusion of nonregulated animals
reported by research facilities in the
other animal category. The correct
1993 figure for other animals used in re-
search is 212,309 which is shown in
table 2. The figures shown for 1990-
1992 are also suspect because of the
high numbers compared to figures for
other years. A review was not made of
the 1992 annual report figures for other
animals but it is very likely that many
of the nonregulated animals were
reported and inadvertently included in
the count for other animals. The
general trend has been a significant in-
crease in the number of other animals
reported used in research since 1973.
The increase in use of these animals
may be partly due to the decreased use
of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and
hamsters. It may also be due to more
research being done in the areas of
wild animal management and the fact
that some wild animals appear to be
good animal models for certain disease
conditions. Whatever the reasons may
be, the use of other animals in research
has increased significantly over the past
23 years. H
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
11
Legislation cont'd from p.l
act may be cited as the "Agricultural
Market Transition Act."
"Section 903. Regulation of Com-
mercial Transportation of Equine for
Slaughter.
Subject to the availabihty of ap-
propriations, the Secretary of Agricul-
ture may issue guidelines for the
regulation of commercial transporta-
tion of equine for slaughter by per-
sons regularly engaged in that activity
within the United States. In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall
review the food, water, and rest
provided to equine for slaughter in
transit, the segregation of stallions
from other equine during transit, and
such other issues as the Secretary con-
siders appropriate." The Secretary
may also conduct investigations and
inspections, establish civil penalties
and require people to maintain
records and file reports. Related bill
S. 1541.
• S. 1847 A bill to amend the Pack-
ers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to
make it unlawful for any stock-
yard owner, market agency, or
dealer to transfer or market non-
ambulatory cattle, sheep, swine,
horses, mules, or goats, and for
other purposes.
Introduced on June 6, 1996, by
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and
referred to the Committee on Agricul-
ture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This bill
may be cited as the "Downed Animal
Protection Act."
"It shall be unlawful for any stock-
yard owner, market agency, or dealer
to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer,
market, hold, or drag any nonam-
bulatory livestock unless the nonam-
bulatory livestock has been humanely
euthanized." Related bill H.R. 2143.
• S. 1899 A bill entitled the "Mollie
Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area
Act."
Introduced on June 24, 1996, by
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and signed
into law by President Clinton on July
2, 1996.
"Section 702(3) of Public Law 96-
487 is amended by striking 'Arctic Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge Wilderness'
and inserting 'Mollie Beattie Wilder-
ness.' The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to place a monument in
honor of Mollie Beattie's contribu-
tions to fish, wildlife, and waterfowl
conservation and management at a
suitable location that he designates
within the [refuge]." Ed. note: Mollie
Beattie was the Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. She died
earher this year from cancer.
• S. 1915 A bill to amend the En-
dangered Species Act of 1973 to
prohibit the sale of products
labeled as containing endangered
species, and for other purposes.
Introduced on June 27, 1996, by
James Jeffords (R-Vermont) and
referred to the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works. This bill
may be cited as the "Rhino and Tiger
Product Labeling Act."
"Congress finds that (1) the popula-
tions of several magnificent and uni-
que endangered species , such as the
African black rhinoceros, the
southern white rhinoceros, and many
tiger subspecies, are declining; (2)
growing demand throughout the
world for wildlife and wildlife parts
has created a market in which com-
mercial exploitation has threatened
certain wildhfe populations; (3) there
is no legal mechanism enabling the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to con-
fiscate products labeled as containing
endangered species and prosecute the
merchandiser for sale or display of
the products; and (4) (A) although ap-
proximately 90,000 import and export
shipments occur annually in the
United States, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is able to maintain
only 74 wildlife inspectors at 11 ports
of entry to monitor the shipments;
and (B) wildlife inspectors are able to
physically inspect an estimated 5 per-
cent of all shipments, making the
detection rate of contraband wildlife
products extremely low."
Section 9(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 is amended by in-
cluding in the prohibition the sale of
"any product labeled as containing
any such species or any species of fish
or wildlife Hsted in Appendix 1 to the
Convention." The prohibition is also
extended to endangered plants listed
in Appendix 1 to the Convention.
To find out the status of these or
any other bills, contact the congres-
sional bill status line at (202) 225-
1772. TJiis infomiation is also avail-
able on the World Wide Web at
http:llthomas.loc.govldl04ldl04query.html
U.S. Department of
Agriculture Proposes
Greater Protection
for Cats and Dogs
July 3, 1996. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture is proposing to
amend the regulations for the humane
treatment of dogs and cats under the
Animal Welfare Act by disallowing
tethering as a means of primary
enclosure for dogs; revising tempera-
ture requirements for housing and
traveling facilities; and imposing new
cage flooring requirements to enhance
sanitation. The Act does not regulate
privately owned pets.
"We are proposing these changes
to help ensure that dogs and cats
protected under the AWA are treated
in a humane manner," said Michael V.
Dunn, assistant secretary for market-
ing and regulatory programs. "Con-
tinuous confinement of dogs on
tethers is considered by many to be in-
humane, and exposing dogs and cats
to high temperatures can cause
serious trauma or death. We also
believe that coated wire flooring in
dog and cat cages will improve sanita-
tion, help eliminate foot injuries, and
provide comfort for the animals."
The proposed temperature chan-
ges state that ambient temperatures
must never exceed 90$F (32.2$C)
when dogs or cats are present.
"These proposals reflect concerns
voiced by the public and affected in-
dustries during a series of public meet-
ings we held earlier this year," Dunn
continued. "These meetings are an im-
portant component of our continuing
efforts to improve standards of care
and strengthen enforcement of the
AWA."
For further information or a copy
of Docket No. 95-078-1 (the proposed
tethering and temperature require-
ments) or Docket No. 95-100-1 (the
proposed flooring requirements) contact:
Stephen Smith, animal health tech-
nician, animal care, REAC, APHIS,
USDA, Suite 6D02, 4700 River Road
Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234,
phone: (301) 734-7833.
These notices were published in
the July 2 Federal Register. ■
12
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
NO DOGS
Federal Policies on Access for Service
Animals
by
Kelly Henderson, M.Ed., Department of Special Education,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
For ages, humans have explored
the potential heahng benefit of
animal companions for people who are
ill or who have disabilities. The use of
animals to assist their ailing human
counterparts dates to the early Greeks
who gave horseback rides to raise the
spirits of people who were incurably ill,
and documentation from the seven-
teenth century makes medical refer-
ence to horseback riding as treatment
for gout, neurological disorders, and
low morale (6). Even the famous nurs-
ing pioneer Florence Nightingale tes-
tified to the benefits of pet animals for
the sick (11).
Since the middle of this century,
the physical and emotional needs of dis-
abled people in Western societies have
became more visible and demanded
more public attention (13). A variety
of methods have been sought to in-
crease the personal independence of
people with disabilities. Since the
1960's, use of companion animals to in-
crease physical mobility has con-
tributed to logistical and emotional in-
dependence for many people with sen-
sory, health, and other physical impair-
ments. Probably the first systematic
use of companion animals to assist dis-
abled Americans was the training of
dogs to guide people who are blind and
visually impaired. While the earliest
formal training of guide dogs in the
United States dates back 65 years (8),
widespread training has only occurred
during the last three decades. Sixteen
major guide dog training facilities
operate in the United States (20). Each
is administered independently. Guide
dog training techniques are similar
across schools, but policies, such as ap-
pHcant requirements and types of dogs
used, vary.
While guide dogs for the blind are
the most commonly identified com-
panions for people with disabilities, a
number of other partnerships have
been initiated. In 1975, Canine Com-
panions for Independence (CCI)
pioneered the concept of the service
dog, a highly trained canine used to as-
sist people who have disabilities with
spcciahzed services. CCI classifies
specific types of service dogs by func-
tion. Service dogs perform tasks such
as operating light switches, retrieving
items, pulling wheelchairs, and opening
doors. Hearing dogs assist people who
are deaf or hearing impaired by alert-
ing them to sounds such as telephone
rings, crying infants, alarms, and people
calHng them by name.
The largest of service animal train-
ing organizations, CCI has four training
centers across the United States.
Several other groups operate training
facihties either nationally or regionally.
Policies vary by organization though
many facilities prepare dogs to serve
both mobility-impaired people and
those with hearing impairments.
Throughout the United States, nearly
70 organizations train service dogs, and
about 45 providers train hearing dogs
(19). Assistance Dogs International,
Inc., a nonprofit association of training
programs, establishes standards that
member organizations must meet.
While canine assistants have great
potential for improving the quality of
life for many disabled people, the use
of service animals remains an exception
to the rule. In its 20-year history, CCI
has trained only 600 animals. At least 9
million Americans live with significant
physical and sensory impairments (14),
but there are only 10,000-12,000 assis-
tance dogs at work, of which 7,000 are
guide dogs (5).
Social animals, those used to ad-
dress animal-assisted therapy goals, are
trained and used in a wide variety of
settings including hospitals, nursing
facilities, schools, and other institu-
tions. While several national organiza-
tions provide structured training and
certification programs for these
animals, most are not recognized as
"service animals" under Federal law.
Therefore, this category of assistance
animals will not be referenced in this
review of service animal policy.
Policy Overview
Federal policy dictating access
and training rights for disabled people
who have service animals has, but for
the past decade, been virtually nonex-
istent (1,2,9,12). In its absence, many
individual States did address rights for
service animals through laws providing
disabled people access to public
facilities and housing. To date, all
States and the District of Columbia
have to some extent legislated such ac-
cess rights. However, the extent of
coverage varies considerably State to
State and many State codes do not in-
clude reference to service dogs other
than guide and hearing dogs.
In two major pieces of Federal
transportation and housing legislation,
provisions to prohibit discrimination
against people with disabilities were in-
terpreted to include access for service
animals. Regulations implementing the
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (1) and
the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (9) clarify
that anti-discrimination protections ex-
tend to people who use service animals.
The Air Carrier Access Act
of 1986 (ACAA)
The first Federal legislation to
directly address public access rights of
people with disabilities who have ser-
vice animals was the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986 (1). The act amended the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to pro-
vide that prohibitions of discrimination
against handicapped people apply to
air carriers. Regulations clarify that air
carriers must permit "dogs and other
service animals used by handicapped
people to accompany the people on a
flight" (16). As a result of these 1986
stipulations regarding air transport, the
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
13
1990 Americans with Disabilities Act
does not reference air carriers in its
Title II and III transportation require-
ments.
The ACAA regulations provide
one of the most specific statements of
Federal policy regarding accommoda-
tion of service animals. While efforts to
implement other Federal laws, such as
the Americans with Disabilities Act,
rely largely on technical assistance
guidance, regulatory examples, and set-
tlements to guarantee access and ac-
commodation rights for disabled
people who have service animals, the
ACAA directly regulates these rights.
The act requires air carriers to permit
service animals to accompany people
with disabilities on flights (14 CFR
382.55 (a)) (16).
(1) Carriers shall accept as
evidence that an animal is a service
animal identification cards, other writ-
ten documentation, presence of har-
nesses or markings on harnesses, tags,
or the credible verbal assurances of the
quahfied handicapped person using the
animal.
(2) Carriers shall permit a service
animal to accompany a qualified hand-
icapped individual in any seat which
the person sits, unless the animal
obstructs an aisle or other area that
must remain unobstructed in order to
facilitate an emergency evacuation.
(3) In the event that special infor-
mation concerning the transportation
of animals outside the continental
United States is either required to be
or is provided by the carrier, the infor-
mation shall be provided to all pas-
sengers traveling outside the continen-
tal United States with the carrier, in-
cluding those traveling with service
animals.
Service animals are also refer-
enced in the act's regulations regarding
seat assignments and clarifies that in
the case that the service animal cannot
be accommodated at the seat location
of his/her human companion, the car-
rier must offer the passenger the oppor-
tunity to move with the animal to
another seat as an alternative to requir-
ing the animal to travel with checked
baggage (14 CFR 382.37(c)).
The Fair Housing
Amendments Act
In a comprehensive housing
rights bill. Congress provided specific
rights to accommodations for people
with disabilities. The Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988 prohibits dis-
crimination in the sale or rental of a
dwelling based on handicap (9). The
act defines discrimination to include:
a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of
the handicapped person, reasonable
modifications of existing premises
occupied or to be occupied by such
person if modifications may be
necessary to afford such person full
enjoyment of the premises...; or
b) a refusal to make reasonable accom-
modations in rules, pohcies, prac-
tices, or services, when such accom-
modations may be necessary to af-
ford such person equal opportunity
to use and enjoy a dwelling.
The implementing regulations res-
tate the law with regard to the policy on
reasonable accommodations, and con-
tribute an illustration by example (10):
Example (1): A blind apphcant
for rental housing wants to live in a
dwelling unit with a seeing eye dog.
The building has a no pets policy. It is
a violation of Section 100.204 for the
owner or manager of the apartment
complex to refuse to permit the ap-
plicant to live in the apartment with a
seeing eye dog, because without the
seeing eye dog, the blind person will
not have an equal opportunity to use
and enjoy a dwelling.
The illustration does make clear
that at least in the case of a guide dog
for the blind, reasonable accommoda-
tions in rules, policies, practices, or ser-
vices include special consideration for
housing of service animals.
The Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA)
National access rights for service
animals (28 CFR 36.104 defines the
term "service animal" as "any guide dog,
signal dog, or other animal individually
trained to provide assistance to an in-
dividual with a disabihty.") across set-
tings became a reality with the passage
of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (2). Title I, administered by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission (EEOC), prohibits employ-
ment discrimination against qualified
individuals with disabilities. Under
Title I, discrimination includes not
making reasonable accommodations to
the known physical or mental limita-
tions of an otherwise qualified in-
dividual who is an applicant or
employee unless such covered entity
can demonstrate that accommodation
would impose an undue hardship on
the operations of the business of such
covered entity. (42USC 12112(b)(5)(A))
Regulations (18) clarify the types
of reasonable accommodations for
which an employer is responsible. A
sizable hst of reasonable accommoda-
tions is noted in 29 CFR 1630.2(o) in-
cluding modifications or adjustments to
the work environment, or to the man-
ner or circumstances under which the
position held or desired is customarily
performed, and acquisition or modifica-
tions of equipment or devices (29 CFR
1630.2(o)(2)(ii)).
Service Animal Information
Additional information on the ac-
quisition, training, and rights of ser-
vice animals is available from: (Please
note that "800" phone numbers may
not be accessible outside the United
States.)
Assistance Dog Providers in the
United States — a complete guide to
finding a guide, hearing, or service
dog. Seizure alert and therapy dogs
also included. Hardback, 168 pp.,
$27.00 (includes S&H) to: N.C. Ser-
vice Dogs, 3598 W. Delphi Pike,
Marion, IN 46952, phone: 317-384-
5530.
Legal Rights of Guide Dogs, Hearing
Dogs and Service Dogs — includes a
summary of all State policies regard-
ing service dog access. Softcover, 64
pgs., $6.00 to: Assistance Dogs Inter-
national, Inc., c/o Freedom Service
Dogs, Inc., P.O. Box 150217,
Lakewood, CO 80215-0217, phone:
303-234-9512.
Delta Society National Service Dog
Center - provides advocacy educa-
tion, referral, research assistance, and
a variety of other information services
regarding service dogs. 289 Perimeter
Road East, Renton, WA 98055-1329;
800-869-6898 Voice, 800-809-2714
TDD.
Assistance Dog Institute — promotes
research and development and
provides education on assistance dog
programs. P.O. Box 2334, Rohnert
Park, CA 94927.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Information Line, U.S. Department of
Justice, 800-514-0301 Voice, 800-514-
0383 TDD.
14
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
Title II, Section 12132, of the
ADA prohibits discrimination against
quaHfied disabled people in public ser-
vices including public transportation.
Though the Title II regulations (28
CFR 35.130) do require "reasonable
modifications" to avoid discrimination,
they do not directly acknowledge ac-
cess rights of service animals.
Of all sections of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, Title III refer-
ences service animals most directly.
Title III prohibits discrimination of
people with disabilities in public accom-
modations and services operated by
private entities. Section 12182(b)(2)(A)
clarifies specific prohibitions on dis-
crimination on the basis of disability,
and includes in the definition of dis-
crimination:
a failure to make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices,
or procedures, when such modifica-
tions are necessary to afford such
goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to
individuals with disabilities, unless
the entity can demonstrate that
making such modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of
such goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accom-
modations. (42 use
12182(b)(2)(A)(ii))
The U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) implementing regulations (15)
clarify "modifications in poUcies, prac-
tices, or procedures." 28 CFR Section
36.302(c) specifically addresses service
animals and clarifies that "Generally, a
public accommodation shall modify
poHcies, practices, or procedures to
permit the use of a service animal by an
individual with a disability" (see AWIC
Newsletter vol. 6 #2-4- Americans with
Disabilities Act and its Applicability to
Zoos). The regulation further clarifies
that public accommodations are not re-
quired to supervise or care for a service
animal.
Implementation of the ADA
The EEOC and the DOJ, Civil
Rights Division, use several reference
aids to clarify the legislative intent of
the ADA. Both agencies publish tech-
nical assistance manuals (21,22) that
provide clarifications of the code and
regulation through explanations and ex-
amples. Both agencies also have
authority to take a variety of actions in
response to complaints and charges
filed. Service animal policy is thus af-
fected by the lawsuits, amicus briefs,
and formal and informal settlement
agreements brokered by the agencies.
EEOC technical assistance
guidelines (21) support the Title I
regulatory language and define
employers' responsibilities to make
modifications for people with dis-
abiUties who have service animals in the
workplace.
It may also be a reasonable accom-
modation to permit an individual with a
disability the opportunity to provide
and utilize equipment, aids or services
that an employer is not required to pro-
vide as a reasonable accommodation.
For example, it would be a reasonable
accommodation for an employer to per-
mit an individual who is bhnd to use a
guide dog at work, even though the
employer would not be required to pro-
vide a guide dog for the employee. (29
CFR 1630.2 App)
Title III prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disability in public ac-
commodations. U.S. Department of
Justice regulations do specifically
define service animals and require
public accommodations to modify
policies and procedures to permit use
of service animals. The Title III Techni-
cal Assistance Manual (22) clarifies the
definition of service animal by listing
tasks typically performed by service
animals: guiding people who have im-
paired vision, alerting individuals with
impaired hearing to the presence of in-
truders or sounds, providing minimal
protection or rescue work, pulling a
wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items
(III-4.2300).
The manual reinforces the access
policy via illustration.
An individual who is blind wishes
to be accompanied in a restaurant by
her guide dog. The restaurant must per-
mit the guide dog to accompany its
owner in all areas of the restaurant
open to other patrons and may not in-
sist that the dog be separated from her
(III-4.2300).
The manual offers additional
guidance regarding responsibilities of
the service animal owner and of the
public accommodation (III-4.2300).
The care or supervision of a ser-
vice animal is the responsibility of his
or her owner, not the public accom-
modation. A public accommodation
may not require an individual with a dis-
ability to post a deposit as a condition
of permitting a service animal to accom-
pany its owner in a place of public ac-
commodation, even if such deposits are
required for pets.
In these cases, the technical assis-
tance and interpretive guidance helps
to secure public access and employ-
ment accommodation rights for people
with disabilities who have service
animals. However, in a recent manual
supplement, the guidance describes
situations in which it would permissible
for health and safety reasons to not
allow access to service animals. The
DOJ Title III Technical Assistance
Manual (22) attempts to clarify these
provisions by acknowledging that in
rare circumstances, if the nature of the
goods and services provided or accom-
modations offered would be fundamen-
tally altered or the safe operation of a
public accommodation jeopardized, a
service animal may not be allowed to
enter (III-4.2300, 1994 Supplement).
In practice, health concerns have
given rise to conflicts about the access
of service animals in medical facilities.
Though many hospitals work to
negotiate satisfactory access policies,
some institutions remain less flexible,
leaving disabled people with service
animals to pursue legal remedies
through State or Federal channels.
ADA Complaint Resolution
Both the EEOC and DOJ inves-
tigate charges of ADA violations. The
DOJ has been involved in a number of
recent lawsuits, briefs, and settlements
that address access and accommoda-
tion rights for service animals. One
case, Crowder v. Kitigawa (7), went to
trial on constitutional, as well as ADA,
Title II (prohibition of discrimination
in activities of state and local govern-
ment) claims. In February 1994, the
U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii ruled against the plaintiff, a
visually disabled guide dog user who
protested Hawaii's canine quarantine.
In June 1994, the U.S. Department of
Justice filed an amicus brief (23) sup-
porting an appeal of the case, which is
currently under review by the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
Several additional complaints
regarding access rights for people with
disabilities who have service animals
have been pursued by the Department
of Justice. In at least two formal and
several informal settlement agreements
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
15
with the DOJ under Title III of the
ADA, owners and operators of private
businesses agreed to modify poUcies
with respect to access for service
animals. Upon negotiation with the
DOJ, most pubHc accommodations and
facilities agreed to take steps to ensure
that disabled people who use service
animals are provided access to the
facilities. For example, an inn modified
its policy to permit people with dis-
abilities accompanied by service
animals to stay without paying the $25
flea extermination service fee. In
another settlement, a drugstore chain
agreed to modify its "no animals"
policies by making exceptions for ser-
vice animals.
Other Implementation
Concerns
Beyond the regulatory enforcement
and judicial interpretations of Federal
law, access and accommodation rights
for service animals are further affected
by several other factors. To date,
Federal policies fail to address a num-
ber of aspects related to service
animals.
The training of service animals is
currently not regulated by Federal
agencies. No Federal law or regulation
includes reference to access for animals
in training, although 21 States do
secure such rights in State code (4). No
guidelines for service animal trainers or
for certification of the animals themsel-
ves is found in Federal policy. Though
a number of service animal training or-
ganizations do maintain membership in
Assistance Dogs International, Inc.,
and meet ADI standards for training,
each organization may still maintain its
own certification and evaluation
criteria. While no federally recognized
certification or training standards have
yet been estabhshed, two Federal laws
address certification or other proof of
service animal status. Regulations im-
plementing the ACAA require air car-
riers to accept as evidence that an
animal is a service animal identification
cards, other written documents,
presence of harnesses or other mark-
ings on harnesses, tags or the credible
verbal assurances of the qualified hand-
icapped person using the animal (14
CFR 382.55(a)(1)). Department of Jus-
tice ADA technical assistance indicates
that a number of States have programs
to certify service animals; however, a
private entity cannot insist on proof of
State certification before permitting the
entry of a service animal to a place of
pubhc accommodation. The impor-
tance of training and use of service
16
animals to people with disabihties has
yet to be recognized by the health in-
surance industry (3). For example, the
time a parent oi a child with a (Usability
or an adult with a disability invests to at-
tend a service animal training session
(some as long as 6 weeks) is not
covered by Federal Family and Medical
Leave Act criteria of "serious illness"
(17).
The use of service animals has im-
proved the quality of life for people
with sensory and physical disabilities.
While people with disabilities in
America still confront barriers erected
by ignorance and misinformation, the
three major Federal laws reviewed
above work to defeat such discrimina-
tion by guaranteeing access and accom-
modation rights to people with dis-
abilities who use service animals.
Kelly Henderson can be reached at
the University of Maryland, Department
of Special Education, 1308 Benjamin
Building, College Park, MD 20742-1161;
301-405-6503, ore-mail:
hendhage@wam.umd.edu.
References
1. Air Carrier Access Act, 49 USC
app. 1374 (1986).
2. Americans With Disabilities Act,
42 USC Part 12100(1990).
3. Allen, K. (1995). Coping with life
changes and transitions: The role of
pets. InterActions 13(3): 5-10.
4. Assistance Dogs International
(1994). Legal rights of guide dogs, hear-
ing dogs, and service dogs. Assistance
Dogs InternationahLakewood, CO.
5. Assistance Dog United Cam-
paign. What is the Assistance Dog
United Campaign and why is it needed?
(Information sheet available from Assis-
tance Dog Institute, Rohnert Park, CA
94927).
6. Bustad, L.K. and L. Hines (1984).
Historical perspectives of the human-
animal bond. In The Pet Connection,
R.K. Anderson, B.L. Hart & L.A. Hart,
eds.. Center to Study Human- Animal
Relationships and the Environ-
ments:Minneapolis, pp. 15-29.
7. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 842 F.Supp.
1257 (D. Hawaii 1994).
8. Fames, E. and T. Eames (1989).
A comparison of the guide dog move-
ments of England and the United
States. Journal of Visual Impairment
and Blindness 83(4): 215-218.
9. Fair Housing Amendments Act,
42 USC Sect. 3604 (1988).
10. Fair Housing Amendments Rule,
24 CFR Sect. 100.204 (1989).
11. Hines, L.M. and L.K. Bustad
(1986). Historical perspectives on
human-animal interactions. National
Forum 66(1): 4-6.
12. Housing and Urban-Rural
Recovery Act, 12 USC 170 In- 1 (1983).
13. Karan, O.C. & Greenspan, S.
(Eds.). (1995). Community Rehabilita-
tion for People with Disabilities. Butter-
worth-Heinemann:Boston
14. La Plante, M.P. (1991). Medical
conditions associated with disability. In
Disability in the United States: A portrait
from national data, S. Thompson-Hof-
fman and I.F. Storck, eds.,
Springer:New York, pp.34-72.
15. Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of DisabiUty by Public Accommoda-
tions and in Commercial Facilities, 28
CFR Part 36(1991).
16. Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of Handicap in Air Travel, 14 CFR
Part 382 (1990).
17. Ptak, A.L. (1995). Service dogs
for children with disabilities: When are
they the right prescription? Delta
Society Alert 6(3): 1-2.
18. Regulations to Implement the
Equal Employment Provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 29
CFR Part 1630.
19. Stiverson, C. (in press). ^55/5-
tance do^ providers in the United States
(2nd Edition). (To be available from
N.C. Service Dogs, P.O. Box 160, Fair-
view, N.C. 28730).
20. Stiverson, C. & Dodson, G.
(1995, March). Assistance dog providers
in the United States. Ball State Univer-
sity:Muncie, IN.
21. U.S. Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission (1992). A technical
assistance manual on the employment
provisions (Title I) of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (Publication no.
EEOC-M-IA). U.S.
EEOC:Washington, DC.
22. U.S. Department of Justice
(1992, 1993, 1994). The Americans with
Disabilities Act Title III Technical Assis-
tance Manual and Supplements. U.S.
DOJ: Washington,D.C.
23. U.S. Department of Justice
amicus curiae brief in Crowder v.
Kitigawa (submitted June 13, 1994),
No. 94-15403 ■
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
Rex Leonard Burch (1926-1996)
Humane Scientist,
Prophet, Dreamer, and Visionary
by
Michael Balls, D. Phil.
This article originally appeared in Science and Animal Care,
Spring 1996. Reprinted by permission of
Working for Animals used in Research, Drugs, and Surgery
(WARDS), 8150 Leesburg Pike, Suite 512, Vienna, VA 22182.
Rex Burch died in a hospital in Norwich, Norfolk,
England, on March 9, 1996, after a long fight against
a terminal illness, borne with a courage which amazed both his
friends and those who cared for him. He left us a priceless
legacy, in the form of his book. The Principles of Humane Ex-
perimental Technique, written with William Russell and first
pubUshed in 1959.
The main conclusion of the book is that all concerned in
any way with laboratory animal use have a moral duty to do all
they can to replace the need for animal experiments, to
reduce the numbers of animals used to an unavoidable mini-
mum, and to refine any procedures necessarily used, so as to
minimize any pain or distress suffered by animals in attempts
to meet the essential needs of human beings and other
animals. These Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refine-
ment) are the basis of the concept of alternatives, which is
now enshrined in various national and international laws, and
the focus of attention of organizations all over the world, in-
cluding CAAT (the Center for Alternatives to Animal Test-
ing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland),
FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medi-
cal Experiments, Nottingham UK), and ECVAM (the
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods,
Ispra, Italy).
The greatest value of the Three Rs concept is that it
can encourage unity and cooperation among those who are
otherwise divided. Those who want to see the fastest possible
end to all experimentation can work to reduce, refine and
replace with those whose current responsibilities make some
animal use unavoidable.
The Three Rs are not only good for animals, they
are also good for science. Russell and Burch spelled it out
like this in what I like to call their Humanity Criterion:
"If we are to use a criterion for choosing experiments to
perform, the criterion of humanity is the best we could possib-
ly invent. The greatest scientific experiments have always
been the most humane and the most aesthetically attractive,
conveying that sense of beauty and elegance which is the es-
sence of science at its most successful."
The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique
resulted from a project set up in 1954 by the British Univer-
sities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFA W). Rex Burch
travelled all over Britain during the next five years, and in-
terviewed more than 100 scientists.
When the book was published, it was very well
received, and Charles Hume, Founder of UFAW, expected it
to revolutionize attitudes toward laboratory animals and the
ways in which they were treated and cared for. Strangely, and
for reasons which nobody appears to fully understand, this did
not happen immediately. The book was largely ignored
during the 1960s, partly because their UFAW-funded project
being complete, Russell and Burch themselves embarked on
the next stages of their careers. William Russell became a suc-
cessful comparative psychologist at the University of Reading,
where he is now Professor Emeritus, and Rex Burch set up a
microbiological testing service, in which he established high
scientific standards and a reputation for concern for his cus-
tomers which are no less legendary than his contributions to
laboratory animal welfare.
The Three Rs were "rediscovered" during the 1970s, part-
ly because of the development of FRAME and other replace-
ment alternative organizations, partly because 1975-76 was
declared Animal Welfare Year in Britain, to mark the 100th
anniversary of the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act in
1876, which regulated animal experimentation in Britain for
more than 100 years, and partly because of an investigation by
Professor David Smyth, which resulted in the publication of
hishook. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, in 1978. By
the mid- 1980s, the Three Rs concept had become an integral
part of new laboratory animal protection laws, notably of
Directive 86/609/EEC, which is binding on all 15 member
states of the European Union. However, it was not until the
late 1980s that Russell and Burch themselves were " redis-
covered," first by Martin Stephens, of the Humane Society of
the United States, (HSUS), and Alan Goldberg, of CAAT. I
did not meet Rex Burch until 1994, although I had visited
Sheringham, the small seaside town in Norfolk where he had
set up his testing laboratory, almost every year since he first
went there in 1972. 1 must have walked within a few feet of his
laboratory on dozens of occasions. I shall always wish that I
had noticed the plaque outside the building so that our
friendship could have been longer.
To the delight of Rex Burch among many others, great
events have already happened during the 1990s. The HSUS
has established an annual Russell & Burch award and
FRAME has named its new headquarters Russell & Burch
House. William Russell was the chief guest at the First World
Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences,
organized by Alan Goldberg and held in Baltimore in Novem-
ber 1993.
Sadly, Rex Burch was too ill to travel to Washington to
accept the first HSUS Russell & Burch Award, to attend the
First World Congress, or to join Professor Russell in declaring
Russell & Burch House open. Alan Goldberg and I therefore
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
17
decided that if Rex Burch couldn't come to us, we would go to
him.
As a result, an ECVAM Workshop on The Three Rs: The
Way Forward was held at Sheringham, May 30- June 3, 1995.
Rex Burch and William Russell were both present, along with
20 of the world's leading Three Rs campaigners. The report of
this workshop {Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA) 23:
838-866, 1995) contains 58 far-reaching recommendations, but
this occasion was no less important because it clearly meant a
great deal to Rex Burch himself. The participants unani-
mously reaffirmed their commitment to the Three Rs with
the following words:
"Humane science is good science, and this is best
achieved by vigorous application of the Three Rs: reduction
alternatives, refinement alternatives, replacement alternatives.
Thus, the only acceptable animal experiment is one which
uses the smallest possible number of animals, and causes the
least possible pain or distress which is consistent with the
achievement of a justifiable scientific purpose, and which is
necessary because there is no other way of achieving that pur-
pose. Any proposed experiment on animals should be sub-
jected to prior and effective expert review by an ethics com-
mittee or an equivalent body. The Three Rs should be seen as
a challenge and as an opportunity for reaping benefits of
every kind - scientific, economic and humanitarian -not as a
threat."
A number of Rex's friends had hoped that he would
write his autobiography. He did begin to do so, but the final
stages of his illness intervened. He did, however, write the
Progress of Humane Experimental Technique Since 1959- A Per-
sonal View, which was published in 1995 {ATLA 23: 776-783).
In this article, he describes how he became involved in the
UFAW project, the production of the book and, with par-
ticular delight, his reactions to the tremendous progress made
by the Three Rs concept in recent years. He ended this, his
last publication, with the following words:
"Included in our dreams of 1959 were centers to coor-
dinate work and progress researchers on an international
scale and, above all, sponsors from both industries and govern-
ments. These have come to pass, and bring me to closing with
a quotation (from the Bible) to which I have become very at-
tached, ''Your sons and daughters shall prophecy, your old men
shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. "
Rex Burch was an outstanding human being, remarkable
because of his lifelong enthusiasm for science (his school
friends called him "The Professor") and his concern for all
those with whom he came into contact. With regard to
laboratory animal welfare, he was a prophet, a dreamer and a
visionary. With William Russell, he established the founda-
tions on which a sound, reahstic and far-reaching superstruc-
ture can be built. Let us get on with the work by contributing
our own particular talents to the achievement of the Three Rs
revolution.
Michael Balls is Head of the European Center for the
Validation of Alternative Methods, Ispra, Italy, Chairman of the
Trustees of FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in
Medical Experiments), and Emeritus Professor in the University
of Nottingham Medical School. He was awarded the 1994 Rus-
sell & Burch Award of the Humane Society of the United States.
Announcements...
• Revised Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals Available
The Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR)
of the National Academy of Sciences has published the 1996
revision of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (Guide). The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals requires that
institutions receiving PHS for activities involving animals base
their programs of animal care and use on the Guide and com-
ply, as applicable, with the Animal Welfare Act and other
Federal statutes and regulations relating to animals. By July
31, 1997, all PHS-assured institutions are expected to have
conducted at least one semiannual program and facility
evaluation, complete with reasonable and specific plans and
schedules for corrections of deficiencies where appropriate,
using the 1996 Guide as the basis for the evaluation.
Copies of the Guide are available from the Office for
Protection from Research Risks at (301) 496-7163 ext. 226;
ILAR at (202) 334-2590 and ; the National Center for Re-
search Resources, National Institutes of Health at (301) 435-
0744. It is also available on the World Wide Web at
http://www2.nas.edu/ilarhome/
• New Videos
Basics of Aseptic Surgery and Anesthesia in Rodents
Filmed in a laboratory setting, this 21-minute video is
designed for research and educational personnel who per-
form surgery on rodents. In the video, a laboratory rat is used
to demonstrate techniques that are applicable to rats and
other small laboratory rodents. The initial demonstration
shows how to restrain rodents in preparation for an in-
traperitoneal injection of anesthetic (ketamine-xylazine).
Once the animal is anesthetized, the surgeon prepares multi-
ple sites for operative procedures. In addition to anesthesia
by injection, the video demonstrates two different methods of
inhalation anesthesia, precision vaporizer and closed con-
tainer. Discussion also focuses on personal attire and scrub-
bing procedures that the surgeon uses to prepare for the
surgery. Once the animal and surgeon are prepared, the
animal is moved to the surgery area, and techniques are
presented for maintaining a sterile field and performing
surgeries on multiple animals. The presentation then focuses
on options and recommendations for monitoring the animal
during anesthesia and the postoperative period. Use of
laboratory animals in recovery surgery is common in research
and education, and Federal laws mandate that aseptic techni-
ques be followed in the conduct of such surgery. This video is
designed to begin to meet that mandate and to improve the
welfare of animals used in surgery.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Item # 25051
COST: Purchase (U.S.): 1/2-inch VHS-$110
Purchase (International): 1/2-inch VHS PAL or 1/2-inch
VHS SECAM-$110; prepayment in U.S. dollars required.
Shipping and insurance charges are paid by the customer.
18
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2
RENTAL (U.S. only): 1/2-inch VHS--$29 for 3 days. For
rental orders only, call (800) 826-0132 or (814) 865-6314
or e-mail: AVSmedia@psulias.psu.edu
TO ORDER, CONTACT: Media Sales, Continuing and
Distance Education, The Pennsylvania State University,
820 North University Drive, Suite D, University Park, PA
16802-1003 or phone (814) 863-3102, fax (814) 865-3172,
e-mail: MediaSales@cde.psu.edu
Or call toll free: (800) 770-2111
Tliis publication is available in alternative media on re-
quest. Additional information can be found at
http://www.cde.psu.edu/MediaSales/Releases/Aseptic-
Surgery/Defau It. html
Peter Singer Lecture at the University of Wisconsin
A 1995 presentation by philosopher and author Peter
Singer focusing on "The Great Ape Project" is available on
videotape. The 53-minute video is entitled Humans and
Animals: Bridging the Gap and is available for U.S. $10 from
Animal Liberation Action Group, Campus Connection,
Reeve Memorial Union, University of Wisconsin at Osh-
kosh, 748 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901-3512, phone:
(414) 235-4887, fax: (414) 424-7317, e-mail: Animal-
Lib@vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu
• Electronic Newsletter: NetVet Links
Ken Boschert, DVM, founder of the popular website
NetVet, introduces NetVet Links, an electronic periodic sum-
mary of new veterinary websites. The inaugural edition
(May 1996) includes over 100 sites. The newsletter will be
distributed to the following mailing lists and online services:
VETINFO, VETMED-L, COMPMED, VETWEB, VET-
LIB-L, PROMED, NOAH, and VIN. For additional infor-
mation, contact Dr. Boschert, Washington University,
Division of Comparative Medicine, Box 8061, 660 S. Euclid
Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, phone: (314) 362-3700, fax: (314)
362-6480, e-mail: ken@wudcm.v^stl.edu
• APHIS Forms Available on the Web
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has made many of its forms available on the World
Wide Web. The forms are in PostScript and in Portable
Document Format (PDF). The user must install the Adobe
Acrobat Reader to view and print the PDF files. Program
Units that have posted forms are Biotechnology, Biologies,
and Environmental Protection; Plant Protection and
Quarantine; and Veterinary Services. For more informa-
tion, contact Keith Reding at kreding@www.aphis.usda.gov.
• lACUC Seminar and Resource Guide
lACUC: The Charge and the Challenge II, an interactive
seminar for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(lACUC) members, will be held on November 18, 1996, at
the Merrill Lynch Conference and Training Center,
Plainsboro (near Princeton), New Jersey. Registration for
individuals whose institutions are members of New Jersey
Association for Biomedical Research (ABR) is $100; non-
members: $125. For a registration form, contact New Jersey
ABR, P.O. Box 8449, Elizabeth, NJ 07208, phone: (908) 355-
4456, fax: (908) 355-2938, e-mail: njabr@aol.com
New Jersey ABR has produced a revised edition of
Animals in Research: A Resource Guide. The spiral-bound
book was compiled in response to requests from educators,
librarians, and students for information about use of animals
in research, education, and consumer product testing. To
order, send a check for $30 payable to New Jersey ABR, P.O.
Box 8449, Elizabeth, NJ 07208.
• National Cell Culture Center
The National Cell Culture Center is a resource facility
that provides large-scale mammalian cell culture services.
The center, available to researchers throughout the United
States and Canada, has been established to alleviate the
shortage of facilities and expertise required to meet the cell
culture needs of the biomedical research community. It
provides researchers with large quantity production of mam-
malian cells in suspension or monolayer cultures, produc-
tion of monoclonal antibodies, and nonhybridoma cell
secreted proteins. Direct programmatic inquiries can be ad-
dressed to Elaine Young, phone: (301) 435-0776, e-mail:
elainey@ep.ncrr.nih.gov AppHcation and resource inquiries
should be addressed to Dr. Mark Hirschel, phone: (800)
325-1112.
• Department of Defense Biomedical Website
The Department of Defense (DoD) website features
descriptions of federally funded DoD biomedical research,
testing, and training programs. Areas covered include infec-
tious diseases, biological hazards, toxicology, medical educa-
tion, laboratory animals, and more. The URL is
http://dticam.dtic.mil/www/dodbr.
• Animal Welfare Act Violations
August 1, 1996. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
recently charged licensed animal dealers Glen G.
Wrigleyand Buckshire Corp. of Perkasie, Pennsylvania, with
violations of the regulations and standards of the Animal
Welfare Act in 1994 and 1995. APHIS inspectors found
violations in the areas of recordkeeping, veterinary care,
housing, sanitation, pest control, and storage.
Note: APHIS news releases, program announcements,
and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access
the APHIS Home Page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov and
click on "APHIS Press Releases." Anyone with an e-mail
address can sign-up to recieve APHIS press releases auto-
matically. Send an e-mail message to major-
domo@info.aphis.usda.gov and leave the subject blank. In
the message, type subscribe press_releases
• SCAWontheNet
You can now reach the Scientists Center for Animal
Welfare (SCAW) by e-mail at: scaw@erols.com ■
AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2
19
Courtesy of Hereford World
National Youth Livestock Program
Ethics Symposium
Recent times have given rise to the pubUc revelation of unethical
and illegal activity associated with youth livestock programs across
the United States. While the majority of exhibitors at youth livestock
expositions are responsible stewards of their animals, the actions of a
few unethical individuals could endanger the existence of educational
youth livestock programs.
In keeping with its history of addressing issues of concern in
animal agriculture, the Livestock Conservation Institute will facilitate
a Youth Livestock Program Ethics Symposium on December 6-8,
1996, at the Hyatt Regency in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.
The symposium, designed to help livestock show competitors,
educators, and others deal with the problem of unethical activities,
will include two "Super Sessions" keying on the topics "Adult Involve-
ment-What's Excessive?" and "Jackpot Shows-How to Make Them
Part of the Solution."
The symposium will also include break-out sessions on individual
youth livestock issues and workshops that will include information
about innovative programs that are addressing ethical issues.
For registration information, please contact the Livestock Conser-
vation Institute at (502) 782-9798 or fax: (502) 782-0188.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at
(202)720-2791.
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202)
720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
AWIC Newsletter Staff
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty for Private Use, $300
ANIMAL WELFARE INFORMATION CENTER NEWSLETTER
ISSN 1050-561X
If changes are required to your mailing address, enter them on the address label and return
it or a copy of it to the above address. If you wish to be removed from the mailing list for
this pubhcation check here and return this page or a copy of it to the above address.
ANIMAL WELFARE INFORMATION CENTER
NEWSLETTER (ISSN 1050-561X)
is published quarterly and distributed free of charge by the
National Agricultural Library. The Animal Welfare
Information Center Newsletter provides current
information on animal welfare to investigators, technicians,
administrators, exhibitors, and the public. Mention of
commercial enterprises or brand names does not constitute
endorsement or imply preference by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Articles appearing in this newsletter do not
necessarily represent positions or policies of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture or any agency thereof.
Tim Allen, Editor
D'Anna Jensen, Production and Layout
Michael Kreger, Assistant Editor
WWW Address http://netvet.wustl.edu/awic.htm
BULK RATE
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
USDA
PERMIT NO. G95
